Loading...

P.V.Abdul Salam vs The State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
P.V.Abdul Salam vs The State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1842 of 2008()


1. P.V.ABDUL SALAM, PROPRIETOR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

3. M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INDIAN PRIVATE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.PADMARAJ

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :28/10/2008

 O R D E R
                          R.BASANT, J.
                       ----------------------
                    Crl.M.C.No.1842 of 2008
                   ----------------------------------------
            Dated this the 28th day of October 2008

                              O R D E R

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed by the

petitioner to quash an F.I.R filed alleging commission of the

offence punishable under Section 420 and 406 I.P.C. The crime

has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed

before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is complete. The final

report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the

learned Magistrate and the matter is pending before the learned

Magistrate as C.C.No.83/2007 before the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Palakkad. The final report having already been filed,

I am satisfied that the prayer for quashing the F.I.R has lost its

relevance. The petitioner’s prayer for premature termination of

proceedings must now be urged before the learned Magistrate.

In a prosecution for a warrant offence, cognizance in which has

been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police,

premature termination of proceedings can be claimed under

Section 239 Cr.P.C by discharge. I am not satisfied that the

Crl.M.C.No.1842/08 2

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or need be invoked in the

facts and circumstances of this case. Premature termination of

proceedings must ordinarily be claimed under the ordinary

provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Notwithstanding

the fact that this court has jurisdiction in an exceptional case

under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring about such premature

termination, notwithstanding the availability of such ordinary

remedy, I do not find any circumstances justifying the invocation

of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in this case now. I am

satisfied that this Crl.M.C can, in these circumstances, be

dismissed with appropriate observations.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if

the personal appearance of the petitioner were insisted to

facilitate the claim of discharge, that would cause great hardship

and inconvenience to the petitioner. I am satisfied that

appropriate directions can be issued.


      3.    In the result,

      a)    This Crl.M.C is dismissed.

      b)    I may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at

liberty to appear before the learned Magistrate and claim

premature termination by discharge.

Crl.M.C.No.1842/08 3

c) Until a decision is taken on the claim for premature

termination of proceedings by discharge, if the petitioner is

represented by counsel, the personal presence of the petitioner

shall not be insisted and he shall be permitted to advance such

plea through his counsel. Expeditious order shall be passed on

such plea for discharge when raised.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr

Crl.M.C.No.1842/08 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.No. of 2008

ORDER

09/07/2008

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information